pathfinderfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Carrion Tribe
This content isn't unique enough to warrant its own article. Nor is it appropriate for us, as a project, to arbitrarily define our own titles or groupings; is the phrase "Tribes of the Carrion King" referenced anywhere in the source material? -- Heaven's Agent 13:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC) :It is referred as such in the source I mentioned. It is referred also as "Carrion tribe" in other part of the same text. I think the "Tribes of the Carrion King" is much better. There is a whole article describing these tribes! The title "Gnolls of the Brazen Peaks" is not correct because the "White Canyon" tribes are located in the same area. Let's try to fill in the blanks. We could consolidate the information later. --Dmeta 16:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC) ::I was afraid that was the only mention of the phrase; it's not a formal title granted to these tribes by the designers, it's a section heading. As such we shouldn't be using it as an article title. ::The individual tribes should have articles, but this grouping should not exist as part of the wiki. At least not as a stand-alone article; there's really no reason to tie them together in such a manner. Gnoll tribes in general should be linked from the primary gnoll article, and possibly as part of a region's article, but not as an arbitrary unit defined by us. It's not our right, or the purpose of this project, to do so. -- Heaven's Agent 17:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC) :::But I am saying that this is their official name by the designers, see "Howl of the Carrion King", page 57. I don't agree to delete it. If we list them together with the other tribes we are missing the point that there are two levels of organization. One of the (high level) tribes or packs is the "The tribes of the Carrion King" etc. And I am afraid we are wasting much more time in discussions instead of the actual work. --Dmeta 18:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC) ::::It's not an official name. As I noted, that's nothing more than a section heading, and that's the only place that it occurs in the source material. If it were an official designation it would be mentioned somewhere, at least once, within the text of that source or within another source. It's not. And as such it should not be used. ::::I'm sorry you're concerned we're wasting time by discussing the subject. However, when a disagreement such as this occurs I firmly believe it's important to discuss possible actions before they're taken. -- Heaven's Agent 19:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC) :::::Ok. Let's continue the discussion then. In "Dark Markets" page 16, the specific group of tribes is mentioned (the name is emphasized in bold) as "Carrion tribe". We could name them as this. But it has to be in another level of organization because the "carrion tribe" includes at least 8 tribes with other specific names. The description "Pale Mountain gnolls" you are using I think is not correct. The White canyon gnolls belongs to the same area if you check the map in "House of the Beast". It is going to be a confusion. Also at least one of these tribes is described as to roam all Brazen Peaks. I believe the more safe approach is to name the specific group as "Tribes of the Carrion King" as it is their name in "Howl of the Carrion King", page 57. --Dmeta 19:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC) (Resetting Indent) "Carrion Tribe" would be an appropriate article title, as it's one given by the designers themselves. Within that you could describe the power structure of those smaller tribes that comprise the group. I'm not using the term "Pale Mountain Gnolls" to describe anything more than gnolls that live in the Pale Mountains region; the White Canyon tribe should be included in such a grouping. Further, as it's not an official grouping designated by the game designers it would be just as inappropriate to use "Pale Mountain Gnolls" as an article title as it would to use "Tribes of the Carrion King". Neither is specifically given by the developers, and as such neither should be used in such a capacity. However, they can and should be used, where appropriate, within an article; "Pale Mountain Gnolls" is an appropriate section heading for text describing gnolls in the region. -- Heaven's Agent 21:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC) :I don't know why the deletion tag was removed from this article, as the discussion seems to be ongoing. In any case, I have brought up this issue in general on the discussion for our naming convention policy. Without rehashing the arguments started here (which I think should continue until it reaches a resolution), please join the discussion there on the issue in general, as I think this won't be the only time a disagreement like this comes up. If we have an agreed-upon policy in place, it will prevent long discussions on the topic down the road. -- yoda8myhead 21:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC) ::I removed the deletion tag. I have changed the name to "carrion tribe". I think both AgentHeaven and I came to an agreement for this. But I have to say that I do not like to find a deletion mark and/or a total reorganization without notice, and I do not like the unquestionably authority behavior especially on topics where the unquestionably authority didn't have an involvement. I consider it a misunderstanding and I hope it will not happen again. --Dmeta 22:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC) :::I felt the matter was closed as well. "Carrion Tribe" is a designation provided by Paizo, so I don't have any objections to the article being named as such. The deletion tag may have been removed somewhat hastily; I usually like them stay up for a week or more, as when an article becomes a candidate for deletion I find it's best to allow the entire wiki community time to voice opinions. The template's intended to draw timely attention to an article and spawn a discussion, something that it did in this case. But I don't have any objections to it being removed in this instance. -- Heaven's Agent 03:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC) ::::Ok, I see now that an agreement was reached. But I would like to address the "unquestionable authority" that you mention, Dmeta. Those of us who are admins on the wiki have no more authority than anyone else, save that we have a few additional privileges in terms of what we can and can't technically do on the wiki. But we are equal voices in any and all decisions that take place here. That said, we try to maintain established policies indescriminantly across the project. That means that sometimes things get changed or moved or deleted to fit what the community (at one time) decided would be the standard. It's a collaborative process, so there will always be people changing or altering what you do, for better or worse. Generally we try to give reasons or explanations when we make these changes. If you ever wonder why something was done, please ask and we will gladly explain which policy or standard we were trying to enforce or implement. And if you feel a policy could be improved on, suggest it. There are talk pages on every article, both within the main namespace and in all meta namespaces. I think part of the problem is that when many of these policies were put in place, the community consisted of (generously) half a dozen people. Now that we have a larger group of chroniclers, we can revisit things and see what works for a larger group of editors. I hope you don't feel singled out or belittled by this or any other case of your work being edited, but if you feel like any of it is unfair, please let us know. --yoda8myhead 05:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC) ::::: Ok. Of course I don't have any problem with people altering or editing what I wrote in an article. It was not such a matter. But lets not discuss it again. --Dmeta 08:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)